Wouldn't It Be Funny If We Were Winning In Iraq? II

On October 3rd, I posted on a very positive article about the war in Iraq.  I was careful to sound some cautionary notes, and to distinguish the question of whether we might be winning from the question of whether we should have invaded in the first place.  One has to cover one's butt.  But now its official: the Washington Post has caught up with me.  President Bush's "surge" policy, which the Democrats were contemptuous of, has produced positive results. 

NEWS COVERAGE and debate about Iraq during the past couple of weeks have centered on the alleged abuses of private security firms like Blackwater USA. Getting such firms into a legal regime is vital, as we've said. But meanwhile, some seemingly important facts about the main subject of discussion last month -- whether there has been a decrease in violence in Iraq -- have gotten relatively little attention. A congressional study and several news stories in September questioned reports by the U.S. military that casualties were down. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), challenging the testimony of Gen. David H. Petraeus, asserted that "civilian deaths have risen" during this year's surge of American forces.

A month later, there isn't much room for such debate, at least about the latest figures. In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43 -- down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004.

During the first 12 days of October the death rates of Iraqis and Americans fell still further. So far during the Muslim month of Ramadan, which began Sept. 13 and ends this weekend, 36 U.S. soldiers have been reported as killed in hostile actions. That is remarkable given that the surge has deployed more American troops in more dangerous places and that in the past al-Qaeda has staged major offensives during Ramadan. Last year, at least 97 American troops died in combat during Ramadan. Al-Qaeda tried to step up attacks this year, U.S. commanders say -- so far, with stunningly little success.

The trend could change quickly and tragically, of course. Casualties have dropped in the past for a few weeks only to spike again. There are, however, plausible reasons for a decrease in violence. Sunni tribes in Anbar province that once fueled the insurgency have switched sides and declared war on al-Qaeda. The radical Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr ordered a cease-fire last month by his Mahdi Army. Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the top day-to-day commander in Iraq, says al-Qaeda's sanctuaries have been reduced 60 to 70 percent by the surge.  This doesn't necessarily mean the war is being won.

The bit about "the trend could change" and "This doesn't necessarily mean the war is being won," that is the WaPo covering its butt.  Yes, this might be one more big disappointment.  But wouldn't it be nice if al-Qaeda is losing?  If the Sunni insurgency is collapsing?  If Iran is losing control of its Iraqi assets, and can no longer kill American soldiers by proxy?  If we might now see the rise of a genuine democracy in the fertile crescent? 

Of course it would.  Unless you are emotionally and politically committed to an American defeat in Iraq.  Most American politicians who opposed the surge will come around soon enough if it does prove to be an enduring success.  They will say they knew it all along, and I will say the more the merrier.  But Move.On won't be able to budge.  For some, there will be no substitute for defeat.